Nazi Conspiracy & AggressionIndividual
Responsibility Of Defendants

Karl Doenitz

(Part 4 of 13)

D. PARTICIPATION IN CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT VIOLATIONS OF RULES
OF WARFARE.

The course of the war waged against neutral and allied
merchant shipping by German U-boats followed, under
Doenitz's direction, a course of consistently increasing
ruthlessness.

(1) Attacks on Merchant Shipping. Doenitz displayed "his
masterly understanding in adjusting himself to the changing
fortunes of war" (1463-PS). From the very early days,
merchant ships, both allied and neutral, were sunk without
warning, and when operational danger zones had been
announced by the German Admiralty, these sinkings continued
to take place both within and without those zones. With some
exceptions in the early days of the war, no regard was taken
for the safety of the crews or passengers of sunken merchant
ships, and the announcement claiming a total blockade of the
British Isles merely served to confirm the established
situation under which U-boat warfare was being conducted
without regard to the established rules of international
warfare or the requirements of humanity.

The course of the war at sea during the first eighteen
months is summarized by two official British reports made at
a time when those who compiled them were ignorant of some of
the

[Page 821]

actual orders issued which have since come to hand. An
official report of the British Foreign Office summarizes
German attacks on merchant shipping during the period 3
September 1939 to September 1940, that is to say, the first
year of the war (D-641-A). is report, made shortly after
September 1940, states in part follows:

" During the first twelve months of the war,
2,081,062 tons of Allied shipping, comprising 508
ships, have been lost by enemy action. In addition,
769,213 tons of neutral shipping comprising 253 ships,
have also been lost. Nearly all these merchant ships
have been sunk by submarine, mine, aircraft or surface
craft, and the great majority of them sunk while
engaged on their lawful trading occasions. 2,836 Allied
merchant seamen have lost their lives in these ships.

"In the last war the practice of the Central Powers was
so remote from the recognized procedure that it was
thought necessary to set forth once again the rules of
warfare in particular as applied to submarines. This
was done in the Treaty of London 1930, and in 1936
Germany acceded to these rules. The rules laid down:

"1) In action with regard to merchant ships,
submarines must conform to the rules of International
Law to which surface vessels are subjected.

"2) In particular, except in the case of persistent
refusal to stop on being summoned, or of active
resistance to visit and search, a warship, whether
surface vessel or submarine, may not sink or render
incapable of navigation a merchant vessel without
having first placed passengers, crew, and ship's papers
in a place of safety. For this purpose, the ship's
boats are not regarded as a place of safety unless the
safety of the passengers and crew is assured in the
existing sea and weather conditions, by the proximity
of land, or the presence of another vessel which is in
a position to take them on board. "At the beginning of
the present war, Germany issued a Prize Ordinance for
the regulation of sea warfare and the guidance of her
naval officers. Article 74 of this ordinance embodies
the submarine rules of the London Treaty. Article 72,
however, provides that captured enemy vessels may be
destroyed if it seems inexpedient or unsafe to bring
them into port, and Article 73 (i) (ii) makes the same
provision with regard to neutral vessels which are
captured for sailing under enemy convoy, for forcible
resistance, or for giving assistance to the enemy.
These provisions are certainly not

[Page 822]

in accordance with the traditional British view but the
important point is that, even in these cases, the Prize
Ordinance envisages the capture of the merchantman
before its destruction. In other words, if the Germans
adhered to the rules set out in their own Prize
Ordinance, we might have argued the rather fine legal
point with them, but we should have no quarrel with
them, either on the broader legal issue or on the
humanitarian one. In the event, however, it is only too
clear that almost from the beginning of the war the
Germans abandoned their own principles and waged war
with steadily increasing disregard for International
Law, and for what is, after all, the ultimate sanction
of all law, the protection of human life and property
from arbitrary and ruthless attacks." (D-641-A)

Two instances are then set out:

"On 30 September 1939, came the first sinking of a
neutral ship by a submarine without warning and with
loss of life. This was the Danish ship 'Vendia' bound
for the Clyde in ballast. The submarine fired two shots
and shortly after torpedoed the ship. The torpedo was
fired when the master had already signalled that he
would submit to the submarine's orders and before there
had been an opportunity to abandon ship. By November
submarines were beginning to sink neutral vessels
without warning as a regular thing. On the 12th
November the Norwegian 'Arne Kjode' was torpedoed in
the North Sea without any warning at all. This was a
tanker bound from one neutral port to another. The
master and four of the crew lost their lives and the
remainder were picked up after many hours in open
boats. Henceforward, in addition to the failure to
establish the nature of the cargo, another element is
noticeable, namely an increasing recklessness as to the
fate of the crew." (D-641-A)

And then, dealing with attacks on allied merchant vessels,
certain figures are given:

"Ships sunk

241

"Recorded attacks

211

"Illegal attacks

112

"At least 79 of these 112 ships were torpedoed without
warning." (D-641-A)

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.